The bitcoin -microsoft comparisons are disturbing. It's tough to argue with the facts laid out.
The reason why you cannot ascribe microsoftness to Bitcoin is because the latter isn't a corporation. What's funny is that the example:
When Lotus 1-2-3 took off, Microsoft created Excel and brought it into the OS. WordPerfect succeeded, so Microsoft built Word. Then Microsoft bought PowerPoint early. All of these applications became standard with Microsoft, while the early startups were marginalized.
is the complete opposite of what Bitcoin did. Because Bitcoin did nothing.
For example in spirit of the MS example: Bitcoin did not change the protocol to emulate Ethereum; it's the other way around: Ethereum was built because Bitcoin didn't work well for colored coins. It also aimed for and after many years implemented proof-of-stake because "mining is dirty", but Bitcoin did not change proof-of-work, despite pressure from activists and their aligned government agencies.
So what we're seeing is that despite the most unmicrosoftness of Bitcoin, it's still "winning", compared to competing shitcoins. Just like you don't compare WTI to Microsoft, you don't compare Bitcoin to Microsoft.
microsoftnessto Bitcoin is because the latter isn't a corporation. What's funny is that the example:unmicrosoftnessof Bitcoin, it's still "winning", compared to competing shitcoins. Just like you don't compare WTI to Microsoft, you don't compare Bitcoin to Microsoft.